Gharib v. Casey

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a judgment entered “for the Defendants and against the Plaintiff” was pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because, “[h]ad the district court meant only 20 to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, such a judgment on the merits would be inappropriate.”
• “Had the 10 district court meant only to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, [] a judgment on the 11 merits would be inappropriate.”
• question of law whether investment scheme constituted a security
• employee’s interest in contributory pension plan is not a security

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).